2015 (12) TMI 329 - AT - Service Tax

Power of Commissioner to remand the case - Held that - under Section 85(4) the language is used in a wider context, it does not restrict the type of order which the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass. Rather it states that the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass such order as he thinks fit. Thus, scope of remand is included in the provision of laid down in the Section 85(4). Accordingly the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to remand the case under Section 85(4). Reliance is placed on the case of CST, Delhi v. World Vision - 2009 (11) TMI 452 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI . - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to remand order by Commissioner (Appeals) under Central Excise law.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the challenge by the Revenue against the remand order issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respective cases for de novo adjudication. The Revenue contended that the power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was eliminated by an amendment in Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This section specifies that the Commissioner (Appeals) can pass orders confirming, modifying, or annulling the decision or order appealed against, but does not explicitly mention the power to remand. However, the judgment highlights Section 85(4) of the Finance Act, 1994, which provides a broader scope by stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass such orders as he deems fit, including an order enhancing the service tax, interest, or penalty. It is emphasized that the language used in Section 85(4) does not restrict the type of order the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass, thereby allowing for the possibility of remand as well.

The Tribunal's analysis underscores that under Section 85(4), the Commissioner (Appeals) has the authority to remand a case, as the provision grants the Commissioner (Appeals) the discretion to pass any order he deems appropriate. This interpretation is supported by a reference to a relevant case law, CST, Delhi v. World Vision - 2010 (20) S.T.R. 49 (Tri.-Del.), which further solidifies the understanding that the power to remand is inherently included in the broader authority provided under Section 85(4) of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the Tribunal dismisses the appeals brought by the Revenue, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s ability to remand cases for de novo adjudication when deemed necessary.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the interplay between the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Finance Act, 1994, regarding the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand cases. By highlighting the broader language and discretion granted under Section 85(4) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal upholds the Commissioner (Appeals)'s authority to remand cases, thereby affirming the legality of the remand order in question and dismissing the Revenue's challenges.